The June, 1996 edition
of Back to Genesis contains a short, 3-page article
titled, Should Creationists Abandon the King James Version?
The article, unfortunately, repeats the same erroneous arguments
that KJV Only advocates have been putting forth for a number of
years now. It is regrettable that Dr. Morris would lend his
weight to these kinds of arguments. I was heartened, to some
degree, a few years ago when Dr. Morris withdrew his endorsement
of Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, a work
that has been rejected as utterly inaccurate and without merit by
nearly every knowledgeable Bible scholar and minister that has
reviewed it. When I spoke with Dr. Morris at that time, he
repeated his preference for the KJV, but admitted that he had not
read Mrs. Riplinger's work well enough to realize what it really
contained.

The arguments put
forward by Dr. Morris are thoroughly examined and, in each
case, refuted, in my full-length work, The King James Only
Controversy (Bethany House, 1995). However, as the questions
that are raised by Dr. Morris are common, I would like to comment
on them in passing.

Dr. Morris, throughout
the article, falls into the trap of making the KJV the
"standard" by which all others are judged. The problem
is, the KJV is not the standard, and cannot be the
standard. Think about it for just a moment. Were there not
translations before the KJV? Of course. Wycliffe, Tyndale, the
Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and so forth, all served the
needs of English speaking Christians prior to 1611. So why not
choose one of these as the "standard"?

We are told
immediately that the KJV translators were all creationists. Of
course, since the theory of evolution had not yet been
propounded, one must ask, "What else could they have
been?" This introduces a serious historical anachronism, for
the issue wasn't an issue at the time. We are also told
that the KJV translators were great scholars, and this is true.
However, those same scholars denied the idea that the KJV was
perfect, or not to be improved upon, in their introduction to
readers. Those same scholars made positive reference to the
Septuagint, and we shall see later that Dr. Morris disagrees with
modern scholars doing what the KJV translators suggested. And
while the KJV scholars were indeed great, they were not perfect,
and were not aware of some important items (such as the proper
way to translate Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 so as to safeguard
the deity of Christ) and were a bit too attached to the Latin
text for their own good as well.

Dr. Morris says the
KJV translators "were familiar with the great body of
manuscript evidence." Unfortunately, he does not document
this assertion. While the KJV translators chose from various of
the earlier printed editions of the Greek New Testament (the
versions of Erasmus, Stephanus' text, and most importantly,
Beza's revision of Stephanus), they did not have
access to the vast majority of Greek manuscripts available
today, including the papyri manuscripts which go back to within
generations of the originals.

Dr. Morris asks a very
important question under the sub-title, Which New Translation?
"Even if one really feels that he ought to switch to a
modern translation, how can he decide which, if any, is really
the inspired word of God?" If Dr. Morris agrees with the KJV
translators, any translation that accurately renders the original
languages is worthy of the title "the word of God." But
is Dr. Morris claiming that the KJV is somehow
"inspired" in and of itself? Did God re-inspire the
Bible between 1604 and 1611? And if so, which of the many
differing editions of the KJV is the "real" one today?
It is hard to say.

Dr. Morris throws out
a number of arguments very quickly under the sub-title, Is God
the Author of Confusion? For example, he laments the fact
that with many translations being available, congregational
reading is difficult. This is quite true. Of course, someone
probably made the same statement in 1604 when they heard about
the KJV. "Why not just use the Bishops' Bible as we have
been for years?" could have been the comment. In Chapter Two
of my book I document the fact that the Church has a long history
of attachment to particular versions and translations. This is
nothing new. Dr. Morris likewise blames a decline on Scripture
memorization upon the use of modern translations, though why
using a modern translation should stop you from memorizing the
Bible is not explained. I know many people who memorize the Bible
in the NASB or NIV who could never memorize it in the KJV.

Next Dr. Morris makes
a very brief comment on "dynamic equivalency"
translations when he writes, "And what about our belief in
verbal inspiration? If it's only the 'thought' that counts, then
the words are flexible, and we can adjust them to make them
convey any thought we prefer." Of course, any translator
providing a dynamic translation is immediately going to say,
"Gracious sakes, no! The issue is to convey the meaning
of the original author. The idea of 'adjusting' them to convey
what I prefer is not what we do at all." But beyond
this, Dr. Morris surely must be aware that the KJV itself used
dynamic translations at places. There is no strictly formal,
word-for-word translation of the Bible, including the KJV. Does
Dr. Morris simply mean to communicate the idea that formal
equivalency (a more literal rendering) is better? If so,
then he can't have any problem with the NKJV or NASB, since both
are formal equivalency translations.

The article then moves
on to the issue of the manuscripts of the Bible. Again, there is
a great deal of information on this topic that needs to be
understood to properly evaluate the claims made by advocates of
the KJV. Dr. Morris repeats a number of less-than-solid
assertions regarding the text in his article. He lumps all modern
translations of the NT together under the rubric of the
Westcott-Hort text, ignoring the major differences between modern
texts (UBS4th and Nestle-Aland 27th ) and
the WH text. He likewise ignores the existence of a number of
different versions of the Textus Receptus, or TR, and ignores the
more than 1,800 differences between the TR and the Majority Text,
treating the TR as if it is in fact the Majority Text itself.
This is a common error that is often repeated in KJV Only
literature.

Dr. Morris needlessly
undermines confidence in modern Hebrew texts by vilifying Rudolf Kittel, calling him a "German rationalistic higher critic,
rejecting Biblical inerrancy and firmly devoted to
evolutionism." All of that may be true, but can Dr. Morris
demonstrate that this had anything at all to do with the
resultant text? Is he aware that the Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia differs from the 1525 Bomberg Text (used for
the KJV) in a whopping eight places, not a single one of
which impacts the meaning of the text? Does Dr. Morris believe
that all conservative, Bible-believing Christian scholars who use
a text other than the KJV or the 1525 Bomberg edition are unable
to examine the information for themselves and, if there were
some kind of "perversion," make note of it? And if he
is against all differences in translation based upon
source-material, why did the KJV translators make positive
reference to the Septuagint themselves? Many of the differences
we find in modern translations in the OT have to do with further
discoveries regarding the Septuagint and DSS, as well as our
great advances in knowledge of the Hebrew language due to the
discovery of cognate languages. Should we allow these advances in
our knowledge to go unused simply to maintain a traditional text?

Dr. Morris uses the
"evolution" tag to attack modern Greek texts by
identifying Westcott, Hort, Nestle and Aland as
"evolutionists." Again, is this solid argumentation? Is
this something a Christian should be doing? Erasmus, the former
of Dr. Morris' Greek text, was the "prince of the
humanists," a Roman Catholic priest, a defender of
transubstantiation in the Mass. So? The issue is not the personal
beliefs of the individuals but, did those beliefs materially
impact the text? If Dr. Morris would like to provide examples
of textual decisions in our modern Greek texts that he thinks are
perversions of the truth, let him do so. I have yet to have a
defender of KJV Onlyism back up their allegations against modern
texts from the original sources themselves. While a few
have pointed to variations, they have never been able to
demonstrate that any theological "bent" on the part of
the editors resulted in a particular textual choice.

Dr. Morris is again
quite free with his epithets when he identifies the great
Christian historian and scholar, Philip Schaff, as "another
liberal evolutionist." Again, is this a valid argument? Does
Dr. Morris use this kind of ad-hominem argumentation in
his defense of creationism? We can only hope not.

The article then says
that the Westcott-Hort text was based mainly on Sinaiticus (a) and Vaticanus (B). To that
point, he is correct. The problem is, he has already erred in
asserting that the modern texts are basically warmed-over
versions of the Westcott-Hort text, which is untrue. Hence, the
reader is led to believe that modern translations are nothing
more than a and B in modern clothes, which
is simply untrue. Dr. Morris says these two manuscripts
were "rediscovered and rescued from long (and well-deserved)
obscurity in the 19th century." Well-deserved?
Upon what basis does Dr. Morris make this assertion? Hopefully he
is not simply repeating the cavils of the likes of Peter Ruckman,
Gail Riplinger, or D. A. Waite. He then makes the statement,
"Since these are both said to be older than the 5000
manuscripts that support the Textus Receptus, they were called
'better.'" Dr. Morris is here confusing the Majority Text
with the TR. There is not a single Greek manuscript in the
world that reads like the TR in every place. Not one. Dr.
Morris does not seem to understand the issues regarding the
Byzantine text type, the families within the Byzantine type, and
the unique (and indefensible) readings of the TR.

Dr. Morris goes on to
say, "So one of the serious problems with most modern
English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and
Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals,
rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the
verbal inspiration of the Bible. Is this how God would preserve
His word? Would He not more likely have used devout scholars who
believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the
Bible?" This kind of argument, which appeals to the emotions
(but not to the facts) is very common, and often carries the day.
But Christians should be very careful about the kind of arguments
they use. Is Dr. Morris calling Erasmus, the Roman Catholic
priest, a Bible-believer? And since he has not even begun to
demonstrate that a single variation in the modern texts is based
upon any "tampering" by any "liberals,
rationalists, or evolutionists," how can he bring such a
serious charge against translations that have been used of God to
bring people to a knowledge of the truth? Has Dr. Morris bothered
to contact any of the godly men who worked on the NKJV, NASB, or NIV translation committees? Does he think Dr. Ken
Barker, for example, of the NIV translation committee, would sit
idly by when faced with obvious tampering of the text on the part
of "liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists"? Does
Dr. Morris really think that all of us who use modern versions,
teach from modern Greek texts, and promote the superiority of
these texts to the TR, are liberals, rationalists, and
evolutionists?

Finally, Dr. Morris
discusses the beauty of the KJV language. I have only one
question to ask: Did the Apostles write in formal, literary
Greek? Did they communicate in a way that was completely
different than the everyday speech of the people to whom they
were writing? The answer is a simple, "No." So why
should we put God's Word in a form other than the Apostles? I'd
like to know Dr. Morris' answer to that.

I titled this article
"A Response to a Brother in Christ," since Dr. Morris is
my brother in Christ. I appreciate his stand for truth in many,
many areas. But Dr. Morris has erred in believing
less-than-honest materials put forward to defend a traditional
text, and he has utilized argumentation that is not honoring to
the truth, nor helpful to his own work in other areas. I call
upon him to consider the issues more carefully. Take the time to
read Dr. D.A. Carson's The King James Version Debate
(Baker, 1979) or my own work on the same subject. If he can
respond to the information presented therein, I, for one, would
like to see the response. If not, I would hope that he would be
kind enough to undo some of the damage he has done by promoting
bad arguments and false information about modern translations.
Surely there are modern translations that are not acceptable: but
Dr. Morris did not differentiate between such works and credible,
godly translations like the NKJV, NASB, and NIV. I hope he will
reconsider his position.